Posted on 11/24/2002 2:11:07 PM PST by Greg Swann
Hmmm...
What have I written here that leads you to believe that this is a sensible question?
Your agreement with the "article".
You disagree with it?
It is the most ridiculous piece of trash I have seen published around here for a long time and that takes some doing given the level of competition.
Nor, may I be so bold as to say it, is the individual the pinnacle of morality.
What you've really done is simply this: your son is going to rebel against your pedantics the first chance he gets. Count on it.
ROTFLMAO!!!! The "rules of law" as you've used the term, is a collectivist activity.
You said: Collectivism is the final resort of the weak. Moral men must be eternally vigilant in the struggle against those that would violate their rights. Collectivists are spawned in childhood and will be forever with us. The rules of law are created to efficiently dispose of them.
The rule of law does protect the rights of individuals -- in part. But it also serves a collective interest, in that it represents the rules by which the society chooses to operate.
The rule of law is set in opposition to the rule of the mob, on the one hand; and the rule of the individual, on the other. And the rule of law is particularly important for the protection of the weak, who would otherwise be taken advantage of by the strong.
You seem to be saying that the moral man must only be concerned with protecting his rights against others. But the moral man does not live in isolation -- he lives in a society, and as such has responsibilities to that society.
Thus, a moral man is required also to fulfill his obligations to society. He will, for example, strive to obey the spirit, and not just the letter of the law. (Consider Bill Clinton, who narrowly obeyed the letter, but egregiously violated the spirit of the law.)
The moral man will also curb his impulses in deference to those who may be merely offended by his actions -- the goal being to ensure a harmonious society, of the sort that is not tempted to take collectivist action against the fellow's bad behavior.
His only responsibility to society is to defend the rights of man and, by extension, his rights. What other responsibilities do you imagine?
Tex, I don't see any common ground between us for, or any profit to me from, a discussion here.
You go have a good day.
That's a bold statement, but it's wrong.
If, for instance, you are willing to turn over your guns so that the gungrabbers won't be able to confiscate them by force...
This would be a mistake, because individual gun ownership is good for the collective. On the other hand, donating your time or money to the nearest charity hospital is a good thing to do.
No, the government doesn't have a right to force you to be virtuous, but for a society to function there must be virtue. Virtuous people don't need the government to make them do the right thing. Virtuous people are worthy of their freedom.
From another email:
There's a gap between these examples and an individual choosing to give for another based solely on his discretion. This sort of sacrifice is at the heart of family.The question of what is called 'Christian charity' came up often in my mail, and it is a vitally important question for this particular weblog:
I guess the question that I'm getting at is this: is there something that ennobles man?
First, it would be accurate to say that in many (but not all) ways, the Nazarene Hellenized (Westernized) the East.
Second, it would also be accurate to say that Marx was seeking to Orientalize (Easternize) the West.
In what way is Christian charity different from Judaic charity? From Islamic charity?
And: How will the West, sleepwalkingly steeped in Marxism, resist the demand of the sacrifice of the self made by Islam, the loudest voice of the non-Hellenized East?
I answered only part of the email:
I guess the question that I'm getting at is this: is there something that ennobles man?Christian charity, Judaic charity, Islamic charity--these are all true sacrifices, the sacrifice of Abel to Cain, the sacrifice of virtue to vice. The sacrifice of industry to sloth, of truth to deceit, of honor to corruption, of the love of life to the contempt of death. The sacrifice of the magnificent human mind to the screeching monkeys of the veldt. The sacrifice of the ego to the mob...
Ask William Wallace. Ask the Nazarene. Ask Socrates.
People interpret these stories as self-sacrifice for the mob, but this is false. It is the self that each of them refused to sacrifice.
See me at Sacrificing Diana.
The human ego is the only object of sacrifice, and this is why it is the only enemy of the doctrines of the East--Christian, Judaic, Islamic or Marxist--and the only weapon that can defeat them.
This is an email I had, with the correspondent named, as I'm sure he is proud of himself, and as I'm sure he has every right to be proud of himself:
Unfortunately, I'm sure the part about "no one listens" is true. The good news is: The truth will out...
From: "al rabinowitz"
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 18:47:03 -0700
To: gswann@primenet.com
Subject: RedsGood on you. I've been saying the same for many, many years. No one
listens. Keep going.
Al Rabinowitz
This is a reply I had to my essay Reds, with the correspondent's name omitted as an act of (ahem) charity:
In the end, it is good for people to contribute for the good of the collective. This can be done voluntarily or it can be done through the force of law. The more it's done voluntarily, the less the socialists can make the case that it should be done through the force of law.Which says: They can't conquer us if we surrender first!
So, to me, the Scouts encouraging contribution to the group is a good thing. It actually prevents socialist encroachment by undermining the argument that individuals must be forced into doing what's good for the collective.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.